Human Rights of Armed Forces Personnel found to be discriminatory under constitutional308 or human rights law. General Comment No. 22 of the UN Human Rights Committee states that: “there shall be no discrimination against conscientious objectors because they have failed to perform military service”.309 The Committee has recommended that States Parties recognize the right of conscientious objection without discrimination:310 “conscientious objectors can opt for civilian service the duration of which is not discriminatory in relation to military service, in accordance with articles 18 and 26 of the Covenant”.311 The Committee has also referred to the need for any difference to be based “on reasonable and objective criteria, such as the nature of the specific service concerned or the need for a special training in order to accomplish that service”.312 There may be other impediments to exercising the right to alternative service. In some countries, for example, alternative service is supervised by the military itself. Thus, people who opt for alternative service out of pacifist beliefs may have difficulty in fully distancing themselves from the military. Moreover, apart from differences in the length of service, people who opt for alternative service may be denied equivalent economic or social rights in comparison to those who perform military service. Again, this is an impediment to exercising the right to alternative service. Box 8.7: Procedures for applying for alternative service313 Country Procedure Cyprus The interested party submits a request, which is examined by the competent committee foreseen by the law. This committee submits a proposal to the Minister of Defence, who takes the final decision on the matter. Duration 308 See the decision of the Italian Constitutional Court (Decision No. 470 of 31 July 1985), declaring that the requirement to perform 20 months of alternative service in comparison with only 12 months of military service was in violation of the constitutional principle of equality. See: José de Sousa e Brito, “Conscientious Objection”, in Tore Sam Lindholm et al., Facilitating Freedom of Religion or Belief: A Deskbook (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers/Brill Academic, 2004). 309 UN Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 22, op. cit., note 278. 138 310 UN ECOSOC, Commission on Human Rights, “Civil and Political Rights, Including the Question of Conscientious Objection to Military Service: Report of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights”, E/ CN.4/2004/55, 16 February 2004, para. 14. 311 Ibid., para. 11. 312 UN Human Rights Committee, Foin v. France, Communication No. 666/1995, 9 November 1999. See also: Maille v. France, Communication No. 689/1996; and Vernier and Nicolas v. France, Communication Nos. 690691/1996. In contrast, see the earlier decision of Järvinen v. Finland, Communication No. 295/1988. 313 Responses to the ODIHR-DCAF 2018 questionnaire, qu. 21(a) and (b). See also the example of Switzerland in Box 8.3.